Do Countries at COP17 Have a Mandate to Negotiate a Climate Agreement?

For the last two global warming negotiations – in Copenhagen and Cancun – there were serious efforts by countries to get a “mandate” to negotiate a new legal agreement that would strengthen international efforts to address global warming. Before this meeting this issue – “where we are headed” – was shaping up to be the key political decision at this year Ministerial meeting in Durban, South Africa. So what gives countries a sense that this might be the year for such an agreement and what is the state of play?

WHY MIGHT THIS YEAR BE DIFFERENT?

Four words – Kyoto Second Commitment Period – is the short answer. Here is the dynamic at play this year that hasn’t existed in the past. Developing countries – such as China, India, small-island states, countries in Africa, etc – want to get the European Union to commit in Durban that it will implement their next round of emissions targets under the rules and structure of the Kyoto Protocol. This is the first through fourth demand of the developing world (as I discussed here). The European Union – one of the key countries likely to take on further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 – have stressed that they will only commit to further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol if they get a “mandate” (sometimes referred to as a roadmap) to negotiate a new legal instrument that would require emissions reductions of all key countries. Their negotiating mandate (as reflected in the Conclusions of their Heads of Government and Environment Ministers) is pretty clear. The statement from all the Heads of Government in the EU stresses:

“It is urgent to agree on a process towards a comprehensive legally binding framework and a clear time line, ensuring global participation, including from major economies. The European Council confirms the openness of the European Union to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol as part of a transition to such a framework…”

The U.S. wants China and India to commit to legally binding commitments in a new agreement, which has been a long-standing position of the U.S. government.

Developing countries want something out of the E.U. And the E.U. wants something out of developing countries. That is the making of an agreement and why this year is different than in the past. After all, the current targets for developed countries run out at the end of 2012, so without an agreement in Durban on the next round of cuts the Kyoto Protocol will be functionally in a comma. Is this dynamic the making of an agreement in Durban on the mandate to agree to a new legally binding accord?

STATE OF PLAY: the mandate question at the end of the first week in Durban

The formal negotiations during the first week brokered no major breakthroughs on the question of “where we are headed”. We wouldn’t expect such a break through to emerge the first week as this is the main political issue in Durban. Ministers will have to be the ones to make this decision during the second week (probably as a part of the end game dynamics). But some hints have emerged this first week that provide a glimpse into those end game dynamics. Here are the clues.

Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries, and a number of countries in Africa are pushing hard for an agreement to move to a legally binding commitment in a defined timeframe. The countries most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming have “shouted” loudly this past week. They put forward specific proposals to finalize a new legally binding agreement next year. These countries are essentially saying: we need the strongest possible international system to address a challenge which, in many cases, is about their fundamental survival as a country.

We are definitely seeing some hints of softening from China on this question of whether or not they’d be willing to accept a binding commitment at some point in the future. In the past they’ve never been willing to say the words binding commitment.

Key countries and groups of countries have positions that are intertwined. They each want something on an issue that the other can move on. That is either the makings of a deal. After all, no one wins if there is a stalemate.

The E.U., China, U.S., African countries, small island states, Brazil (who is the lead negotiator for the developing countries on this issue), and India hold the key to success on the issue of defining where we are headed. Will they each move in Durban or will they insist that the other side has to move all the way towards their position?

Each country or group can make strong shifts in position which will ensure that Durban defines a clear mandate to negotiate a new legally binding agreement in the immediate future. Let’s hope they take this opportunity and help the world move forward on efforts to address global warming. The power is in their hands.

Jake,If “mandate” is indeed a synonym for “road map”, as you suggest, then how should those of us not immersed in the Durban negotations view an outcome that is merely another roadmap, when the UN process is already 2 years past the deadline in its previous mandate, the Bali Roadmap? An agreement to agree on a future agreement could only look like an actual outcome from inside a bureaucratic bubble. What am I missing?